Changes for page FAQ

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/24 20:33

From 2.1 to 1.1 From 3.2 to 3.1

From version 3.1

edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/15 16:56

Change comment: Imported from XAR

To version 2.1

edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/14 23:02

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

@@ -6,70 +6,24 @@
  == How do facts get input into the system? ==
--FactHarbor uses a hybrid model combining three complementary approaches:
++FactHarbor uses a hybrid model:
--=== 1. AI-Generated Content (Scalable) ===
++**~1. **AI-Generated (scalable)**: System dynamically researches claims—extracting, generating structured sub-queries, performing mandatory contradiction search (actively seeking counter-evidence, not just confirmations), running quality gates. Published with clear "AI-Generated" labels.**
--**What**: System dynamically researches claims using AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)
++**2. Expert-Authored (authoritative)**: Domain experts directly author, edit, and validate content—especially for high-risk domains (medical, legal). These get "Human-Reviewed" status and higher trust.
--**Process**:
--* Extracts claims from submitted text
--* Generates structured sub-queries
--* Performs **mandatory contradiction search** (actively seeks counter-evidence, not just confirmations)
--* Runs automated quality gates
--* Publishes with clear "AI-Generated" labels
++**3. Audit-Improved (continuous quality)**: Sampling audits (30-50% high-risk, 5-10% low-risk) where expert reviews systematically improve AI research quality.
--**Publication**: Mode 2 (public, AI-labeled) when quality gates pass
++**Why both matter**:
--**Purpose**: Handles scale — emerging claims get immediate responses with transparent reasoning
++* AI research handles scale—emerging claims, immediate responses with transparent reasoning
++* Expert authoring provides authoritative grounding for critical domains
++* Audit feedback ensures AI quality improves based on expert validation patterns
--=== 2. Expert-Authored Content (Authoritative) ===
++Experts can author high-priority content directly, validate/edit AI outputs, or audit samples to improve system-wide performance—focusing their time where expertise matters most.
--**What**: Domain experts directly author, edit, and validate content
++POC v1 demonstrates the AI research pipeline (fully automated with transparent reasoning); full system supports all three pathways.
--**Focus**: High-risk domains (medical, legal, safety-critical)
--
--**Publication**: Mode 3 ("Human-Reviewed" status) with expert attribution
--
--**Authority**: Tier A content requires expert approval
--
--**Purpose**: Provides authoritative grounding for critical domains where errors have serious consequences
--
--=== 3. Audit-Improved Quality (Continuous) ===
--
--**What**: Sampling audits where experts review AI-generated content
--
--**Rates**:
--* High-risk (Tier A): 30-50% sampling
--* Medium-risk (Tier B): 10-20% sampling
--* Low-risk (Tier C): 5-10% sampling
--
--**Impact**: Expert feedback systematically improves AI research quality
--
--**Purpose**: Ensures AI quality evolves based on expert validation patterns
--
--=== Why All Three Matter ===
--
--**Complementary Strengths**:
--* **AI research**: Scale and speed for emerging claims
--* **Expert authoring**: Authority and precision for critical domains
--* **Audit feedback**: Continuous quality improvement
--
--**Expert Time Optimization**:
--
--Experts can choose where to focus their time:
--* Author high-priority content directly
--* Validate and edit AI-generated outputs
--* Audit samples to improve system-wide AI performance
--
--This focuses expert time where domain expertise matters most while leveraging AI for scale.
--
--=== Current Status ===
--
--**POC v1**: Demonstrates the AI research pipeline (fully automated with transparent reasoning and quality gates)
--
--**Full System**: Will support all three pathways with integrated workflow
--
  ----
  == What prevents FactHarbor from becoming another echo chamber? ==
@@ -77,6 +77,7 @@
  FactHarbor includes multiple safeguards against echo chambers and filter bubbles:
  **Mandatory Contradiction Search**:
++
  * AI must actively search for counter-evidence, not just confirmations
  * System checks for echo chamber patterns in source clusters
  * Flags tribal or ideological source clustering
@@ -83,21 +83,25 @@
  * Requires diverse perspectives across political/ideological spectrum
  **Multiple Scenarios**:
++
  * Claims are evaluated under different interpretations
  * Reveals how assumptions change conclusions
  * Makes disagreements understandable, not divisive
  **Transparent Reasoning**:
++
  * All assumptions, definitions, and boundaries are explicit
  * Evidence chains are traceable
  * Uncertainty is quantified, not hidden
  **Audit System**:
++
  * Human auditors check for bubble patterns
  * Feedback loop improves AI search diversity
  * Community can flag missing perspectives
  **Federation**:
++
  * Multiple independent nodes with different perspectives
  * No single entity controls "the truth"
  * Cross-node contradiction detection
@@ -109,20 +109,23 @@
  This is exactly what FactHarbor is designed for:
  **Scenarios capture contexts**:
++
  * Each scenario defines specific boundaries, definitions, and assumptions
  * The same claim can have different verdicts in different scenarios
  * Example: "Coffee is healthy" depends on:
--  ** Definition of "healthy" (reduces disease risk? improves mood? affects specific conditions?)
--  ** Population (adults? pregnant women? people with heart conditions?)
--  ** Consumption level (1 cup/day? 5 cups/day?)
--  ** Time horizon (short-term? long-term?)
++** Definition of "healthy" (reduces disease risk? improves mood? affects specific conditions?)
++** Population (adults? pregnant women? people with heart conditions?)
++** Consumption level (1 cup/day? 5 cups/day?)
++** Time horizon (short-term? long-term?)
  **Truth Landscape**:
++
  * Shows all scenarios and their verdicts side-by-side
  * Users see *why* interpretations differ
  * No forced consensus when legitimate disagreement exists
  **Explicit Assumptions**:
++
  * Every scenario states its assumptions clearly
  * Users can compare how changing assumptions changes conclusions
  * Makes context-dependence visible, not hidden
@@ -132,6 +132,7 @@
  == What makes FactHarbor different from traditional fact-checking sites? ==
  **Traditional Fact-Checking**:
++
  * Binary verdicts: True / Mostly True / False
  * Single interpretation chosen by fact-checker
  * Often hides legitimate contextual differences
@@ -138,6 +138,7 @@
  * Limited ability to show *why* people disagree
  **FactHarbor**:
++
  * **Multi-scenario**: Shows multiple valid interpretations
  * **Likelihood-based**: Ranges with uncertainty, not binary labels
  * **Transparent assumptions**: Makes boundaries and definitions explicit
@@ -150,6 +150,7 @@
  == How do you prevent manipulation or coordinated misinformation campaigns? ==
  **Quality Gates**:
++
  * Automated checks before AI-generated content publishes
  * Source quality verification
  * Mandatory contradiction search
@@ -156,11 +156,13 @@
  * Bubble detection for coordinated campaigns
  **Audit System**:
++
  * Stratified sampling catches manipulation patterns
  * Expert auditors validate AI research quality
  * Failed audits trigger immediate review
  **Transparency**:
++
  * All reasoning chains are visible
  * Evidence sources are traceable
  * AKEL involvement clearly labeled
@@ -167,11 +167,13 @@
  * Version history preserved
  **Moderation**:
++
  * Moderators handle abuse, spam, coordinated manipulation
  * Content can be flagged by community
  * Audit trail maintained even if content hidden
  **Federation**:
++
  * Multiple nodes with independent governance
  * No single point of control
  * Cross-node contradiction detection
@@ -184,6 +184,7 @@
  FactHarbor is designed for evolving knowledge:
  **Automatic Re-evaluation**:
++
 . New evidence arrives
 . System detects affected scenarios and verdicts
 . AKEL proposes updated verdicts
@@ -192,16 +192,19 @@
 . Old versions remain accessible
  **Version History**:
++
  * Every verdict has complete history
  * Users can see "as of date X, what did we know?"
  * Timeline shows how understanding evolved
  **Transparent Updates**:
++
  * Reason for re-evaluation documented
  * New evidence clearly linked
  * Changes explained, not hidden
  **User Notifications**:
++
  * Users following claims are notified of updates
  * Can compare old vs new verdicts
  * Can see which evidence changed conclusions
@@ -213,6 +213,7 @@
  **Anyone** - even without login:
  **Readers** (no login required):
++
  * Browse and search all published content
  * Submit text for analysis
  * New claims added automatically unless duplicates exist
@@ -219,6 +219,7 @@
  * System deduplicates and normalizes
  **Contributors** (logged in):
++
  * Everything Readers can do
  * Submit evidence sources
  * Suggest scenarios
@@ -225,6 +225,7 @@
  * Participate in discussions
  **Workflow**:
++
 . User submits text (as Reader or Contributor)
 . AKEL extracts claims
 . Checks for existing duplicates
@@ -241,6 +241,7 @@
  Risk tiers determine review requirements and publication workflow:
  **Tier A (High Risk)**:
++
  * **Domains**: Medical, legal, elections, safety, security, major financial
  * **Publication**: AI can publish with warnings, expert review required for "Human-Reviewed" status
  * **Audit rate**: Recommendation 30-50%
@@ -247,6 +247,7 @@
  * **Why**: Potential for significant harm if wrong
  **Tier B (Medium Risk)**:
++
  * **Domains**: Complex policy, science causality, contested issues
  * **Publication**: AI can publish immediately with clear labeling
  * **Audit rate**: Recommendation 10-20%
@@ -253,6 +253,7 @@
  * **Why**: Nuanced but lower immediate harm risk
  **Tier C (Low Risk)**:
++
  * **Domains**: Definitions, established facts, historical data
  * **Publication**: AI publication default
  * **Audit rate**: Recommendation 5-10%
@@ -259,6 +259,7 @@
  * **Why**: Well-established, low controversy
  **Assignment**:
++
  * AKEL suggests tier based on domain, keywords, impact
  * Moderators and Experts can override
  * Risk tiers reviewed based on audit outcomes
@@ -268,6 +268,7 @@
  == How does federation work and why is it important? ==
  **Federation Model**:
++
  * Multiple independent FactHarbor nodes
  * Each node has own database, AKEL, governance
  * Nodes exchange claims, scenarios, evidence, verdicts
@@ -274,6 +274,7 @@
  * No central authority
  **Why Federation Matters**:
++
  * **Resilience**: No single point of failure or censorship
  * **Autonomy**: Communities govern themselves
  * **Scalability**: Add nodes to handle more users
@@ -281,6 +281,7 @@
  * **Trust diversity**: Multiple perspectives, not single truth source
  **How Nodes Exchange Data**:
++
 . Local node creates versions
 . Builds signed bundle
 . Pushes to trusted neighbor nodes
@@ -289,6 +289,7 @@
 . Local re-evaluation if needed
  **Trust Model**:
++
  * Trusted nodes → auto-import
  * Neutral nodes → import with review
  * Untrusted nodes → manual only
@@ -300,16 +300,19 @@
  **Yes - and that's a feature, not a bug**:
  **Multiple Scenarios**:
++
  * Experts can create different scenarios with different assumptions
  * Each scenario gets its own verdict
  * Users see *why* experts disagree (different definitions, boundaries, evidence weighting)
  **Parallel Verdicts**:
++
  * Same scenario, different expert interpretations
  * Both verdicts visible with expert attribution
  * No forced consensus
  **Transparency**:
++
  * Expert reasoning documented
  * Assumptions stated explicitly
  * Evidence chains traceable
@@ -316,6 +316,7 @@
  * Users can evaluate competing expert opinions
  **Federation**:
++
  * Different nodes can have different expert conclusions
  * Cross-node branching allowed
  * Users can see how conclusions vary across nodes
@@ -327,6 +327,7 @@
  **Multiple Safeguards**:
  **Quality Gate 4: Structural Integrity**:
++
  * Fact-checking against sources
  * No hallucinations allowed
  * Logic chain must be valid and traceable
@@ -333,6 +333,7 @@
  * References must be accessible and verifiable
  **Evidence Requirements**:
++
  * Primary sources required
  * Citations must be complete
  * Sources must be accessible
@@ -339,11 +339,13 @@
  * Reliability scored
  **Audit System**:
++
  * Human auditors check AI-generated content
  * Hallucinations caught and fed back into training
  * Patterns of errors trigger system improvements
  **Transparency**:
++
  * All reasoning chains visible
  * Sources linked
  * Users can verify claims against sources
@@ -350,6 +350,7 @@
  * AKEL outputs clearly labeled
  **Human Oversight**:
++
  * Tier A requires expert review for "Human-Reviewed" status
  * Audit sampling catches errors
  * Community can flag issues
@@ -361,6 +361,7 @@
  [ToDo: Business model and sustainability to be defined]
  Potential models under consideration:
++
  * Non-profit foundation with grants and donations
  * Institutional subscriptions (universities, research organizations, media)
  * API access for third-party integrations
@@ -377,5 +377,4 @@
  * [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]]
  * [[Automation>>FactHarbor.Specification.Automation.WebHome]]
  * [[Federation & Decentralization>>FactHarbor.Specification.Federation & Decentralization.WebHome]]
--* [[Mission & Purpose>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Core Problems FactHarbor Solves.WebHome]]
--
++* [[Mission & Purpose>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Mission & Purpose.WebHome]]

Changes for page FAQ

Summary

Details

Applications

Navigation

Need help?